No such thing as compulsory respect
By Trevor Bothwell
web posted November 22, 2004
In a recent column, conservative commentator Ross Mackenzie
offered some pertinent policy recommendations for a second
Bush administration. Among other ideas, Mackenzie proposed
that the president "[p]ermanentize the Bush tax cuts and eliminate
the estate tax," "simplify the tax code," and "[t]rack all illegal
aliens (including terrorists) in the United States, and move to
temporary-worker cards for legals."
No arguments here.
However, Mackenzie's "biggie" recommendation, in his words,
was his suggestion that Bush help to rekindle a sense of service
and sacrifice in our young people by requiring all men and
women 18-23 to complete "one year of compulsory service with
a front-end military component," which would serve as an
equivalent to boot camp.
This certainly is a "biggie." And it's also a "baddie."
To be fair, I believe Mackenzie's intentions are in the right place.
In fact, I share his concerns regarding a desire to renew a sense
of pride in our country, especially when it comes to appreciating
the sacrifices made by our armed forces.
But I have grave doubts that this could ever be accomplished
artificially. If nothing else, I've always thought one of the neat
things about the United States is that we're not North Korea.
For starters, demanding compulsory military service from every
young American would be nothing but an experiment, likely one
with negative repercussions far outweighing any anticipated
positive effects.
On a practical level, the costs associated with implementing a
"front-end" boot camp-style requirement alone would be
staggering. Among dozens, consider: medical benefits;
manpower resources to manage registration, scheduling, and
duty arrangements; and logistical elements that would require
providing new training facilities and drill instructors,
transportation to and from military installations, weapons,
uniforms, food, you name it. In light of an already stretched
defense budget, increasing spending this dramatically is simply
not economically feasible.
And this doesn't even take into consideration the ethical
concerns of such a concept. Taken to all-too-realistic extremes,
the consequences of a compulsory service policy would be
downright tyrannical. Do we begin to arrest hundreds of
conscientious objectors? Consider as AWOL those who aren't
cut out for boot camp and simply leave before the stress ruins
them?
Mackenzie is justifiably concerned about an American military
that is currently strained. As he points out, our Army has only 10
active duty divisions, nearly all of which eventually will have been
involved in Iraq by war's end. Consequently, he believes the
military component of compulsory service would provide a
"lightly trained cohort from which the military might draw in times
of stress on its regular forces."
But the answer to alleviating the pressures faced by our troops,
including overextended National Guardsmen and reservists, is
not to punish high school graduates. We should instead focus our
attention on replenishing volunteer troop levels that were
decimated during the 1990s under President Clinton.
Whereas retaining the option of a military draft is necessary in the
event of a national defense emergency demanding immediate and
significant force buildup, it is nonetheless a temporary affair.
Mackenzie's policy for compulsory military service, on the other
hand, would be permanent, becoming a facet of life that would
exist both in time of war and peace. Over time, it would
necessarily diminish morale, and account for exacerbated
attrition even among our voluntary forces, as the service of our
men and women would no longer be admired, but simply
expected.
Whether we like it or not, feelings of patriotism and appreciation
for military service are highly subjective qualities. As with
anything, how can we measure objectively what causes one
person to love what another hates?
Moreover, it should be common sense that you can rarely force
someone to do something he doesn't want to do. Indeed, the
most beneficial qualities inherent to an all-volunteer military are
the dedication and allegiance it naturally invites, in addition to the
honorability it bestows upon a nation. In short, people don't
volunteer to fight for an unjust cause. (And for the record, Oliver
North has mentioned repeatedly that current re-enlistment levels
are as high as ever.)
A commander in chief who strives to earn the respect of his
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines will inspire a sense of
service in our young people far quicker than a policy that would
require all young women to postpone college for a year in order
to strap on combat boots.
Put differently, it was all too common during the Clinton years for
commanding officers to distribute memos to their units reminding
them not to jeer the commander in chief when he came to visit.
Contrast this with the reception George W. Bush received last
Thanksgiving during his surprise visit to the troops in Baghdad.
Most importantly, everyday Americans are inspired by the
steadfast, brave men and women who volunteer to fight and even
die to secure the freedoms of those they don't even know -- the
same freedoms that would be systematically eroded were we to
cavalierly undercut the integrity of the most powerful military in
the world.
You will never be able to force troops to serve and fight with
courage and honor, or be able to compel the civilian populace to
appreciate it. But you can certainly extinguish the fire in those
who do. Just implement compulsory military service and see
what happens.
Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report, and he is also a
Townhall.com book reviewer. He can be contacted at
bothwell@therightreport.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com